Amazon's entry into the growing tablet sector has been one
of the worst
kept secrets in the tablet industry. Amazon has already stormed the
e-reader market with its line of Kindle
devices, so delivering the company's expansive multimedia platform to a
more versatile platform seemed like a given.

To reach that price point, the Kindle Fire forgoes 3G
access, a microphone, and the usual bevy of cameras that come on
today's tablets. However, the Kindle Fire does include Wi-Fi (802.11n) and a free 30-day
trial of Amazon Prime (an Amazon Prime membership normally runs $79/year).

The Kindle Fire weighs 14.6 ounces and features a dual-core processor. Amazon says that the Kindle Fire provides up to 8 hours of continuous reading or 7.5 hours of video playback (Wi-Fi disabled). The devices fully recharges within 4 hours via its USB 2.0 port.

While the Kindle Fire has 8GB of internal storage, apps from the Amazon Appstore, music, magazines, and Kindle Books will all be stored on Amazon's Cloud Drive service which makes having a large amount of onboard storage unnecessary.

"Kindle Fire brings together all of the things we've been working on at Amazon for over 15 years into a single, fully-integrated service for customers," said Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos. "With Kindle Fire, you have instant access to all the content, free storage in the Amazon Cloud, the convenience of Amazon Whispersync, our revolutionary cloud-accelerated web browser, the speed and power of a state-of-the-art dual-core processor, a vibrant touch display with 16 million colors in high resolution, and a light 14.6 ounce design that's easy to hold with one hand - all for only $199. We're offering premium products, and we're doing it at non-premium prices."

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

You're saying that iOS devices have a larger market share than Android devices...?

And you're telling me that's not backed up by reality?

Have you been reading the news lately?

The Kindle Fire is also going to integrate nicely for Amazon Primes users. One-Click Checkout, anywhere there's Wi-Fi? That's the real strength of the Fire, just like being able to buy 950,000 different books and magazines, anywhere at any time, is the real strength of the Kindle.

I said that digital media (books, movies, music, applications) do not have nearly the profit margins that hardware has. Even if sold in quantity it isn't enough to match hardware. iTunes is the #1 seller of digital media in the US, even over Amazon and music sold in brick & mortar stores, and the total net profit it brings in is absolutely dwarfed by what Apple makes selling hardware. Media just isn't that profitable because almost all of the cost (about 70%-80% average) goes towards content creators and licensees, that's the problem.

This is the reverse of the "razor blade" method of selling goods, in that the razor blade handle is actually more profitable than the blades themselves.

You're either totally ignoring the argument or it is flying completely over your head. Just listen.

Hardware is much more profitable than digital media. The only way media can be more profitable is if the hardware itself has razor thin margins (below 10%) or is sold at cost, and both scenarios are very risky given that selling media at a large enough rate to offset the loss on hardware sale is far from guaranteed.

Money lost on every single console sold. Xbox 360 at one point in the manufacturing process had almost a 50% failure rate.

And yet now the Xbox division of Microsoft makes money hand over fist.

Digital content margins are ENORMOUS and always have been.

You're using the same ridiculous argument that record executives use for why a 30 year old CD version of a Rolling Stone album is $18.99.

That CD costs a nickel to stamp. The packaging, maybe a buck, and probably not even that much. The recording studio has long since been paid for, along the manufacturing plant that made all the CDs, the paper, the inks, the plastic, even the damn shrink wrap.

It costs $18.99 because people will pay that much for it.

Hardware margins have always been slim compared to digital media.

You're so clueless on this issue that I honestly wonder if you're just a troll.

This goes back to reading comprehension. Please follow and you'll understand the differences.

I already addressed game consoles several posts ago, well before you brought it up, and the fact that that particular model is what you are thinking of when making your argument. Clearly everything else is either being ignored or has flown right over your head. Let me spell everything out for you.

Game consoles are sold at a loss, but they manage this because they collect licenses from every game sold, and thos licenses carry higher profit margins than other forms of digital media. This eventually offsets the loss on the game console.

Now let us look at something with completely different profit margins, movies, music, books, applications.

The situation there is completely the opposite since most of the profit there doesn't go to the hardware manufacturer like it does with with game consoles. The bulk of that profit goes to RIAA, movie studios, developers, etc etc.

The profit margins and licensing terms between games on consoles and movies/music/books/apps are completely different.

The proof is in the hard numbers. iTunes, the most profitable digital distribution service in the world, has had a consistent 10% profit since its inception, even with the addition of movies, apps, and books. This is below the average 25% profit margins Apple makes overall, and well below the 30%-40% Apple makes on iPads.

I don't understand why you are being so thick headed and ignoring reality. These are two completely different business models. BTW, PS3 and XBox also makes the same profit margins selling movies and music on the consoles. The profit for movies and music on consoles isn't there, its in the games that you buy at Gamestop or Best Buy or wherever.

Media like this again serves to hook people into a hardware ecosystem, whether it is iOS, Android, whatever, but it is far from a large source of income compared to the hardware itself.

If you think Apple or Amazon is making a mint on movies or music, you are mistaken. Quarterly financial statements have proven otherwise for almost a decade.

One last thing that is slightly unrelated but needs to be addressed. The XBox hasn't been making money "hand over fist". Billions have been invested in it and after six years it is in the black by hundreds of millions in net profit. This isn't runaway profit. Compare it to the iPad that made tens of billions within a year, and it wasn't on the back of software, it was hardware.

Anyway, recognize that movies, music, books, and apps don't make profit the that hardware does unless the hardware is also sold for 10% or less. There is a hard ceiling in place due to the numerous payouts to content creators and licensees.

This is a completely different situation from game consoles where the hardware makers are the licensees that get a substantially larger cut from game publishers.

"Game reviewers fought each other to write the most glowing coverage possible for the powerhouse Sony, MS systems. Reviewers flipped coins to see who would review the Nintendo Wii. The losers got stuck with the job." -- Andy Marken